HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2021, 9:30 PM
NYer34 NYer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123 View Post
^^ whats that low/mid-rise trash immediately to the left (to the southwest) of the proposal in that rendering..
Yeah - was already pointed out it's St. Margaret's House (senior housing).

I would merely add it's merely a part of one of the greatest atrocities in the city's built environment: the mega-block that extends from Fulton to Frankfort (4 normal blocks north-south), and from Gold to Pearl (2-3 blocks east-west).

That mega-block of infamy also houses the heinous Southbridge Towers.

I dream for the day it's all razed and rebuilt. Ideally with the natural streetgrid restored - but nearly anything short of a Gene Kaufman crackhouse-hotel would be an improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2021, 10:07 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
^ They will fight that with everything they have. But they don't want to live near tall buildings. Don't understand it.



https://rew-online.com/relateds-jay-...-as-president/

Related’s Jay Cross joins Howard Hughes as president





by REW
December 3, 2020


Quote:
Jay Cross, the former Related president who led the company’s development efforts of the 28-acre Hudson Yards, has been named resident of the Howard Hughes Corporation.

The announcement came as part of an executive leadership shakeup that including the promotion of HHC’s Interim CEO, David R. O’Reilly, to Chief Executive Officer.

Cross joined Related in 2008 and led the $20 billion, 28-acre Hudson yards redevelopment that includes 11 million square feet of mixed-use commercial, residential, retail, and entertainment space, along with seven acres of open public space featuring the acclaimed Heatherwick-designed Vessel.

Before joining Related, Cross served as President of the New York Jets and was the driving force behind the development of the $1.3 billion MetLife Stadium, the team’s joint venture with the New York Giants.

“We are extremely fortunate that Jay is joining The Howard Hughes Corporation as its new President,” said Bill Ackman, chairman of HHC. “Jay’s extraordinary development career is perfectly matched with HHC’s vision to accelerate strategic development in its master planned communities, and build the cities of tomorrow. Jay is a fantastic addition to our executive leadership team. With David and Jay at the helm, we are ideally positioned to fulfill our vision for HHC’s growth.”

The announcement comes two months after HHC unveiled its plan to redevelop an old glue factory site in the South Street Seaport as a 470 ft. twin tower apartment complex.

The developer said the $1.4 billion development at 250 Water Street will include 100 affordable apartments and renovations to the Seaport Museum.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 2:01 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
http://www.tribecatrib.com/content/2...ommission-says

250 Water St. Towers Too Big for Seaport, Landmarks Commission Says





By CARL GLASSMAN
Jan. 13, 2021


Quote:
The Landmarks Preservation Commission dealt a blow to Howard Hughes Corp.’s controversial proposal to build two 470-foot-high towers at 250 Water Street in the South Street Seaport Historic District.

Opining on the application at its meeting on Tuesday, the commissioners said the towers were out of scale with the historic neighborhood and would, in the words of one, “invade the district’s sky space.”

The commission took no action on the proposal, which the Hughes Corp. (HHC) coupled with the design for an extension of the South Street Seaport Museum on John Street that the museum hopes one day to bring to life through fundraising.

The proposed 360-unit residential condo towers, with about 100 below-market rentals, would stand on a low-rise base meant to fit in with the look and scale of the historic district. While the base design drew mixed reviews from the commissioners—and the prospective museum extension for John Street was largely praised—the towering apartment buildings were roundly rejected. Commissioners even questioned the very concept of two towers atop a base.

So now it’s back to the drawing board for the project’s Skidmore, Owings & Merrill architects.

In a statement, a Howard Hughes Corp. spokesperson said, “We appreciate the LPC’s thoughtful feedback and look forward to returning soon to the commission.”
Quote:
The developer is linking the project’s fortunes to the fate of the struggling South Street Seaport Museum, and a promised $50 million endowment to the institution if it succeeds. The project draws much of its public support from museum advocates who cite the institution’s value to the Seaport and its critical funding needs.

“The museum’s unique tie to the district and this proposal’s unique ability to save it should make this plan worthy of your support,” Downtown Alliance president Jessica Lappin told the commission at a Jan. 5 hearing.

“Without the museum, there is no historic district,” testified Councilwoman Margaret Chin, who along with Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer are lending key political weight to the project.

But at the outset of the commission’s meeting on Tuesday, Sarah Carroll, the chair, made it clear that the benefits to the museum, “while laudable are not factors that we can consider or rely on in determining whether the proposed designs for the 250 Water St. site and John Street site are appropriate.”

Chris Cooper, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s principal architect on the project, argued that the size of the 250 Water Street site is unique for a historic district, and its location at the district’s far end, bordered by Peck Slip, and Pearl, Water and Beekman Streets, should be evaluated in the context of taller buildings outside the landmarked area. “The site is an anomaly in any landmark district,” he told the commission. “It’s a full city block with no historic structures on this block. It’s the largest empty site by more than double of any lot in a landmark district.”


They should end this farce, and go back to the as-of-right version. Build that tower on the waterfront.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 3:32 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
They should end this farce, and go back to the as-of-right version. Build that tower on the waterfront.
Isn't the, as of right version, about ten stories?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 4:16 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,770
LOL, completely absurd.

The lot is only under landmarks jurisdiction because the crazy NIMBYs across the street added it to the Seaport historic district to preserve the river views from their Soviet-style buildings.

Hopefully the next mayor pushes to have this lot removed from Landmarks approvals. It's completely crazy that development of a giant parking lot in the middle of the financial district is repeatedly stymied because of a few rent-controlled grannies.

And while we're at it, the Soviet buildings need to be demolished and redeveloped next. They're horrible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 4:44 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
LOL, completely absurd.

The lot is only under landmarks jurisdiction because the crazy NIMBYs across the street added it to the Seaport historic district to preserve the river views from their Soviet-style buildings.

Hopefully the next mayor pushes to have this lot removed from Landmarks approvals. It's completely crazy that development of a giant parking lot in the middle of the financial district is repeatedly stymied because of a few rent-controlled grannies.

And while we're at it, the Soviet buildings need to be demolished and redeveloped next. They're horrible.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 6:26 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMKeynes View Post
Isn't the, as of right version, about ten stories?
No.











__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 7:24 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,080
Quote:
They should end this farce, and go back to the as-of-right version. Build that tower on the waterfront.
You think they will? I wonder how much the design would change, I like that tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 8:29 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
You think they will? I wonder how much the design would change, I like that tower.
At this point, I don't see how they can fit their program on that site, given the apparent height limit Landmarks wants on the site.

They should go for the opposite, transfer the rights from the parking lot to the waterfront. They can have their parking lot forever, with a view of a nice, big tower on the waterfront.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 11:45 PM
DCReid DCReid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
At this point, I don't see how they can fit their program on that site, given the apparent height limit Landmarks wants on the site.

They should go for the opposite, transfer the rights from the parking lot to the waterfront. They can have their parking lot forever, with a view of a nice, big tower on the waterfront.
Build exactly as the as-of right, bulky 9-10 stories, the exact shape with the all the weird angles. Make the units smaller to fit. Drop any extra improvements that were proposed to get the bigger proposal approved - Nothing extra. Let the LMC and neighbors see what an ugly eyesore they seem to want. if they decide they don't like it, they can buy the new eyesore, at a premium of course, and knock it down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2021, 4:50 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
Build exactly as the as-of right, bulky 9-10 stories, the exact shape with the all the weird angles. Make the units smaller to fit. Drop any extra improvements that were proposed to get the bigger proposal approved - Nothing extra. Let the LMC and neighbors see what an ugly eyesore they seem to want. if they decide they don't like it, they can buy the new eyesore, at a premium of course, and knock it down.
They don't even care about that. It's the big, bulky 400 ft tower on the waterfront they don't want. But it's either build it there, or combine it on one site like they were trying to do. Doesn't seem like Landmarks is in any mood to allow the transfer of bulk to that site, and probably never will. I'd rather have that waterfront tower than the current proposal anyway.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2021, 9:16 PM
DCReid DCReid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
They don't even care about that. It's the big, bulky 400 ft tower on the waterfront they don't want. But it's either build it there, or combine it on one site like they were trying to do. Doesn't seem like Landmarks is in any mood to allow the transfer of bulk to that site, and probably never will. I'd rather have that waterfront tower than the current proposal anyway.
I like the waterfront tower too - certainly better than the bland twins. I hope they go back to the waterfront proposal - if it is as-of-right, how can it be stopped? nd maybe hold on to the parking lot for now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 12:43 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
I like the waterfront tower too - certainly better than the bland twins. I hope they go back to the waterfront proposal - if it is as-of-right, how can it be stopped? nd maybe hold on to the parking lot for now.

I think if anything, they would sell that lot. By why would anyone buy something that's impossible to build on? They know that strengthening the Historic district strengthens their own properties in the area, that's why it's beneficial to support all of the improvements they are planning. But these people simply do not care about that at all. I would let it fall to whatever forces it will, and focus on building my own properties, as-of-right. The best scenario for everyone would be to combine those development rights on the waterfront, because that lot is a void that sucks all development plans into a black hole. (You can see something as-of-right approved below).








Years of talk and trying to placate NIMBYs that were never going to be placated lead to the nothing they have now. It's as if none of the planning or meetings ever happened at all.




https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=159580















Some of the benefits of the current proposal...































__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2021, 3:43 AM
NYer34 NYer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 144
^^ Wow. So small-minded, so frustrating, to throw it all away. I assume Howard Hughes won't just walk away at this point - but everyone has their breaking point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 8:59 AM
BXFrank BXFrank is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 161
I’m guessing the first pic is the latest rendering
https://nypost.com/2021/03/07/apartm...awaits-ruling/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 11:16 AM
SkyHigher SkyHigher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 394
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 1:09 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
This is horrible, but whatever rises there I hope will obscure every view from SouthBridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 1:21 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,770
LOL, the NIMBYs are absurd.

So we're gonna get a squat 310 ft. box, because the NIMBYs in their rent-controlled hovels in Southbridge don't want their river views blocked. We need to demolish those commieblocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 1:56 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
LOL, the NIMBYs are absurd.

So we're gonna get a squat 310 ft. box, because the NIMBYs in their rent-controlled hovels in Southbridge don't want their river views blocked. We need to demolish those commieblocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 4:41 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
LOL, the NIMBYs are absurd.

So we're gonna get a squat 310 ft. box, because the NIMBYs in their rent-controlled hovels in Southbridge don't want their river views blocked. We need to demolish those commieblocks.

I don’t even think this will be approved. They will resort to the as-of-right version. It would be a difficult property to unload.



__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:24 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.